Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:18:01 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Vincent Poy <vince@oahu.WURLDLINK.NET> Subject: Re: buildworld times Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040302170953.4906F-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20040303015020.V2502@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Bruce Evans wrote:
5.2.1-GENERIC
> > > Real User Sys
> > > default 2195.16 1717.69 467.78
> > > -j 2 2003.20 2151.49 539.67
> > > -j 4 1703.15 2485.99 654.00
> > > -j 6 1645.34 2595.67 718.12
> > > -j 8 1627.88 2618.15 743.53
5.2.1-ULE
> > Real User Sys
> > default 2191.03 1722.31 455.82
> > -j 2 1993.30 2154.71 528.67
> > -j 4 1688.14 2493.55 646.69
> > -j 6 1630.02 2597.88 706.06
> > -j 8 1617.72 2619.99 737.98
> >
(gratuitous snipping)
>
> > (2) If we reran these tests with 5.2-CURRENT, how would the numbers
> > change?
>
> I would be surprised if they changed much. buildworld is mostly a gcc
> cpu hog benchmark, and about the only significant thing the kernel can
> do to speed up gcc is to reduce its memory contention.
Interestingly, on the same hardware using 5.2-CURRENT GENERIC - WITNESS,
INVARIANTS, et al (with ULE since that's the default now):
Real User Sys
default 2304.16 1834.51 474.96 # slower
-j 2 1611.61 2715.89 684.97 # faster!
-j 4 1416.11 2988.32 878.40 # faster!
-j 6 1399.92 3090.95 955.74 # fastest!
-j 8 1405.38 3151.92 1003.69 # fasterish!
Note that this was a 5.2.1 source tree built on a 5.2-current system, so
isn't a perfect comparison. I should have used a 5.2.1-current world
changing out only the kernel.
Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040302170953.4906F-100000>